coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
8.  In all cases the applicants brought civil proceedings before Russian courts of general jurisdiction, claiming various monetary sums (unpaid salaries, pensions, compensation payments and/or other benefits) in relation to their military or police service.
9.  On various dates the domestic courts found for the applicants and these judgments became final and enforceable (for more details see the Appendix).
10.  The defendant authorities applied for supervisory review of those judgments. On the dates indicated in the Appendix, the supervisory review courts allowed the authorities’ applications and quashed the final judgments in the applicants’ favour. Their claims were dismissed either by the same judgments of the supervisory review courts or by lower courts in subsequent proceedings, except in the two cases of Mr Bochkarev and Mr Umanets, whose claims were partially granted.
11.  In the Baranov case, on 8 June 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against the local military authority. The proceedings were concluded on 22 September 2004, when the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment of 17 June 2004 in which the Svobodnyy Town Court of the Amur Region had dismissed all the applicant’s claims. During this period, the case was examined nine times by the domestic courts (four times by the first-instance court, four times by the appeal court and once by the supervisory review court).
12.  In some of the cases (Zaytsev, Kudryavtsev, Polusmyak, Russkikh, Stepanov and Others, Mochalov, Barkov, Kozlovskiy and Martynov) the authorities complied with the judgments fully or partially prior to their quashing. In the rest of the cases (Baranov, Sitnikov, Belyasov, Umanets, Bochkarev (the judgment of 15 March 2004), Kuzmin, Korchagin, Gafarova and Others and Dudov) the judgments in the applicants’ favour were never complied with.
13.  In the Bochkarev case, the judgment of 1 June 2006, delivered as a result of a new round of proceedings conducted after the supervisory review, became binding on 25 October 2006. On 30 August 2007 the authorities complied with this judgment by putting the applicant’s family on the priority housing list.
14.  In the Kudryavtsev case the pension paid to the applicant following the quashed judgments was recovered from him after the supervisory review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Pécs. He had been practising as a lawyer.
5.   On 22 January 2006 Mr K. I. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on charges of abuse of a minor.
6.  As it appears from the case file, the criminal investigation was launched against the applicant around 7 August 2006.
7.  The Public Prosecutor preferred a bill of indictment on 5 March 2007.
8.  As a consequence of the criminal proceedings, on 3 July 2007 the Komárom-Esztergom County Bar Association suspended the applicant’s licence to practise as lawyer.
9.  On 25 September 2008 the Pécs District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of a minor and sentenced him to one year imprisonment with enforcement suspended for two years. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
10.  On 10 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered the first-instance court to try the case again.
11.  In the ensuing proceedings on 2 July 2010 the Pécs District Court acquitted the applicant due to absence of proof. The applicant appealed against the judgment for acquittal due to lack of an offence.
12.  Finally, in early December 2010 the applicant withdrew his appeal. Arguing that he could have received several mandates from clients if he had had his licence to practise as lawyer, the applicant decided to terminate the criminal proceedings as early as possible in order to resume his practice.